Bombshells in Time, Sanchez book exeprt

[mburbank]

Anyone who has time, please go and read this article in yesterdays Time magazine:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...0.html?cnn=yes

I've only read it once, but to me it seems absolutely mind boggling. I'd really like you guys to read it and tell me what you think. Particularly, look at what Sanchez says Rumsfeld claims was done without his knowledge, basically that the entire armed forces was able to make and carry out full scale military redeployments without his sayso or even knowledge. That seems to me impossible to believe on the face of it, and if one accepted it as true would mean essentially that eiither the secretary of deffense was a powerless puppet office or that a coup was carried out, discovered, and no one did anything about it. A coup which essentially destroyed any possability of success in Iraq. I think it's clear Rumsfeld is lying, but how could he even try to make such bizarre claims?

At the end of the article, Sanchez says there was indeed a plan for post combat operations in Iraq that was deliberateley shelved. By whom? Rumsfelds claim would mean he was unaware of the ploans not being implemented, and that when he found out it was not, he did nothing. Sanchez says tthat can't be true and that in addition to Rumsfeld, Chenney, Rice, Powell and Bush all must have known.

I've never been in the military, I don't do a lot of military history. What do some of you other guys think about this? I've tried looking at it from several different angels, and every version is deeply troubling to me.

We are looking at massive operations, troop and equipment movements at global scales, and a secretary of defense saying 'I didn't authorize it, I didn't know it was taking place until after it was over, and the fact that this was able to happen should be kept secret.'

Either that's a lie (my guess) on a level so outrageous and so shameful it's almost beyond belief, a historical level of infamy, or an admission of dereliction of duty so massive as to warrant serious punishment.

We're talking about the whole Iraq war here.

Thoughts?

[Harry Paget Flashman]

There are probably 10 sides to this story and all I get is the sound of a cat in Washington covering up the cat poop. No one takes responsibility but someone has to get blamed.

[Colonel Flagg]

Unfortunately, this is what we wil come to expect of the entire Bush legacy - revisionist history. Rumsfeld just got caught by people who were more ethical and trustworthy, and I hope this will be the norm rather than the exception.

Again, I'm reminded of the Watergate conspiracy (I know, so has everyone else) where enough people started rumbling and eventually one individual (Deep Throat) began to dime-out the entire cabal. A major difference is that this is a many headed Lernean Hydra (with many "bad guys"), and Watergate was pretty much a singular operation.

Still, it's satisfying to see that all sides of the story finally do get reported. My idea of "fair and balanced".